- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15005 WP No. 104323 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.104323 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: VITHAL S/O SUBHASH MALWAD, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. INGALAGI, TQ. KUNDAGOL, DIST. DHARWAD-580 028. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH I. ZIRALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHIVARAYAPPA BASAVARAJ MADLI, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. INGALAGI, TQ. KUNDAGOL, DIST. DHARWAD-580 028. 2. CHANNAVEERAPPA BASAVARAJ MADLI, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. INGALAGI, TQ. KUNDAGOL, DIST. DHARWAD-580 028. 3. SMT. SHANTAVVA D/O BASAVANTAPPA SALIMANI, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SHEELVANT SOMAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON, NOW R/O. INGALAGI, TQ. KUNDAGOL-580 028. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2023 PASSED IN FDP NO.3/2011 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KUNDAGOL VIDE ANNEXURE-C, INSOFAR AS ITEM NO.7 I.E R.S. NO.125/2A MEASURING 2 ACRES 25 GUNTAS SITUATED AT INGALAGI TAL: KUNDAGOL, DIST: DHARWAD TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15005 WP No. 104323 of 2024 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. This petition is filed assailing the compromise decree passed in FDP No.3 of 2011, on the file of Civil Judge, Kundagol. 2. The petitioner before this Court is the son of one Subhash Malawad, who claims to have purchased the property from respondent No.3-Smt. Shantavva D/o Basavanthappa Salamani. The sale deed is executed on 23.03.2009 in respect of property bearing R.S.No.125/2A measuring 2-acre 27-guntas of Ingalagi village, Tq:Kundagol. 3. The suit was filed by sons of Basavaraj Madli challenging the sale deed and also for the relief of partition in O.S.No.52 of 2009. The said suit is decreed holding that plaintiffs No.1 and 2 (respondents No.1 and 2 herein) have 2/3rd share in the suit property. The Court has come to the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15005 WP No. 104323 of 2024 conclusion that defendant No.2 -Shantavva did not have right over the property as she is not the wife of Basavaraj Madli and that the decree has attained finality. 4. It is relevant to notice that petitioner's father was a party to the said suit as defendant No.3. The Final Decree Proceeding is initiated pursuant to the said primary decree passed in O.S.No.52 of 2009. In the Final Decree Proceeding, an application is filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) reporting settlement. The compromise petition is signed by plaintiffs in the aforementioned suit. 5. The compromise petition is not signed by the defendants in the said case. The three defendants in the said case are Basavaraj Channabasappa Madli, who was dead by that time the compromise petition was presented, Smt.Shantavva - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15005 WP No. 104323 of 2024 Basavantappa Salamani and Subash Sanganabasappa Malawad, the petitioner's father and the petitioner's father was dead by that time. 6. Since Basavaraj Channabasappa Madli died, the petitioner would be the legal heir of Basavaraj Madli. Since it was held that Smt. Shantavva W/o Basavantappa Salamani has no share in the property, her consent is not required to record a compromise. However, the consent of Subash Sanganabasappa Malawad, the father of the petitioner, was very much required, but he was dead at that point of time; and the petitioner was brought on record as legal representative, but his signature was not taken. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the decree is contrary to law. The petitioner's father had purchased the property which was inherited by the petitioner and the decree could not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15005 WP No. 104323 of 2024 have been passed without the consent of the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents would urge that the person who sold the property to the petitioner's father namely Smt. Shantavva Basavantappa Salamani was declared to be not the owner of the property, as such, the petitioner's father did not acquire title of the property. It is his further submission that after the death of Basavaraj Madli, his 1/3rd share would devolve on the contesting respondents in this petition who are the petitioners before the FDP Court. 9. This Court has considered the contentions raised the Bar and perused the records. 10. It is indeed true that Smt. Shantavva D/o Basavantappa Salamani was not having any right over the property when she sold the property in the year 2009. Thus, petitioner's father did not acquire - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15005 WP No. 104323 of 2024 right over the said property from Smt. Shantavva. But what is relevant to notice is, to the said sale deed, the 1/3rd share holder namely Basavaraj Madli was a signatory. He did not object to the sale transaction. 11. On the other hand, Basavaraj Madli having signed the sale deed, impliedly consented for the sale and he did not question the sale transaction by filing a suit thereafter. Thus, this Court is of the view that Basavaraj Madli is estopped from claiming any right over the property, so also, the petitioners before the FDP Court, who are the contesting respondents herein are estopped from claiming any right over the property as they are claiming right under Basavaraj Madli. 12. Since Basavaraj Madli was the owner of 1/3rd share, he having consented for the sale deed in favour of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15005 WP No. 104323 of 2024 the petitioner's father, the sale deed is valid to the extent of his share. 13. Thus, the compromise could not have been accepted to the extent of 1/3rd share in the property purchased by the petitioner's father-Subhash Malawad. Hence, the impugned compromise decree has to be set-aside and the final decree proceeding should continue to ascertain and demarcate 1/3rd share of petitioner, which the petitioner inherited from Subhash Malawad in R.S.No.125/2A measuring 2-acres 27-guntas. 14. With above observation, the writ petition is allowed in part. 15. The parties shall cooperate for early disposal of the final decree proceeding. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 43